"It's Final" U.S. Will Strike Iran, Says Saudi Informant

[Faith In Him]

“It’s Final” U.S. Will Strike Iran, Says Saudi Informant

Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul
BeaconEquity

The triggering event to WWIII could be as early as October, according
to Debka-Net-Weekly’s intelligence moles.

Iran cannot be allowed to sell Iranian oil for any other currency
other than the U.S. dollar—a fatal mistake Iraq’s Saddam Hussein made
in his quest to lead the charge to undermine U.S. dollar hegemony in
2000.

“It is already decided,” one Saudi prince told an unnamed European
official, according to Debka-Net-Weekly.

When asked by the ‘European’ if America will back out of the hatched
plan to strike Iran, the prince said, “Anything can happen, of course.
But this time we’re sure the American decision to attack is final and
we are already making appropriate preparations.”

However, according to the source, the prince doesn’t know if a strike
on Iran will come before or after the elections in November. But,
“the question now isn’t if the Americans will attack Iran, but when,”
the prince said.

And the Saudis should know best. Fears of an Iranian attack on Saudi
Arabia run deep in the kingdom for its role in allowing a formidable
US presence in the Persian Gulf for more than four decades, a sin for
which Saudi Arabia will never be forgiven by the Muslim alliance in
the region, and has necessitated a close U.S.-Saudi alliance to
counter threats from Iraq (no longer an issue), Saudi Shiites and
Iran.

Iran’s hatred for the U.S. can be traced to 1953, the year of a
successful coup by MI6 and the CIA to overthrow the Mohammad Mosaddegh
government.

But after the fall of the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah
Pahlavi, in 1979, decades of Iranian defiance of American demands to
open Persian oil fields to the West, in a similar manner to the Saudi
kingdom’s quid pro quo with Washington regarding access to Saudi
Arabia’s abundant Ghawar oil fields, have been repeatedly spurned by
Iran’s secular and religious leadership.

But as long as the Iranians continued to transact in U.S. dollars for
Persian oil, a strong case for averting a high-risk war with Iran at
this time could be made.

But, Feb. 27, 2012, Iran crossed the proverbial line in the sand
following an American-led effort to cut Iran from the international
bank clearing system, called SWIFT. The Persian central bank
announced that, not only will any country doing business with Iran be
allowed to pay in any currency other than the U.S. dollar, but those
countries wishing to transact in gold (anti-dollar) are encouraged to
do so, with the latter option especially troublesome and defiant.

“Significant difficulties in making dollar payments to Iranian banks
have forced Iran’s trading partners to look for alternative ways to
settle transactions, including direct barter deals,” according to
Reuters.

“In its trade transactions with other countries, Iran does not limit
itself to the U.S. dollar, and the country can pay using its own
currency,” Reuters quoted central bank governor Mahmoud Bahmani as
saying. “If a country should so choose, it can pay in gold and we
would accept that without any reservation.”

That latest transgression, just as all the other transgressions of
Iran since 1979, this time, the de-linking of the U.S. dollar to
Iranian oil, must be punished, according to MIT professor and U.S.
foreign policy expert Noam Chomsky.

“Iran broke ranks with the United States in 1979, and this is a crime
for which it has to be punished,” said Chomski in a discussion with
Gilbert Archcar for the book, Perilous Power. “And it goes way beyond
rational state interests.

As with Cuba, it’s the Mafia mentality: You can’t allow disobedience
to exist; it’s too dangerous because other people might get the idea
that they can be disobedient as well. So Iran’s going to have to be
punished for that act of disobedience.”

Punishment of Iran through sanctions for an uncooperative regime
regarding U.S. interests in the Middle East is one thing, dropping the
U.S. dollar is quite another—an act so grave that, if the U.S. allows
Iran to go unchallenged or unpunished, other countries seeking to
ditch the poorly managed dollar will do so, as well.

That’s the line in the sand that must lead to military action,
according to William Clark, author of The Real Reasons Why Iran is the
Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker.

Written some time prior to Feb. 2012, Clark, at that time, focused his
discussion on the dollar-euro rivalry for international trade as it
relates to Iran’s Oil Bourse. Iran’s goal of only accepting euros for
its oil is enough to find Iran in hot water, but Iran’s one-step-
further threat to U.S. dollar hegemony by including gold in its
February 2012 announcement, the Achilles’ Heel of the nonredeemable
U.S. dollar, only serves to underscore Clark’s thesis that much more.

“In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin
competing with New York’s NYMEX and London’s IPE with respect to
international oil trades – using a euro-denominated international oil-
trading mechanism,” Clark wrote. “This means that without some form
of U.S. intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold
in the international oil trade.

“Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for
U.S. global domination, Tehran’s objective constitutes an obvious
encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil
market.”

And Tehran’s “obvious encroachment” comes at a very bad time—for the
U.S., that is—but comes at an opportunistic time for Iran, as it will
be able to count on a strong Russian and Chinese alliance against U.S.
aggression for control of crude oil in the Middle East—oil badly
needed by the Chinese and strategically aligned Russia.

At this stage, odds now seem to favor WWIII, a risk Washington must
take to achieve an all-or-nothing outcome to the alternative: the
inevitable end to the U.S. dollar as the world’s premiere reserve
currency and the dire implications of second-world status for the
United States, hyperinflation and civil unrest, or worse.

Clark stated, “Clearly, there are numerous risks regarding
neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a
robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any ‘Shock and Awe’
tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated
anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls
the critical Strait of Hormuz.

“In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz –
where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could
easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per
barrel or more.

World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would
escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression.
Why are the neoconservatives willing to takes such risks? Simply
stated – their goal is U.S. global domination.”

Oil already trades at $100, partly as risk premium to a closing of the
Persian Gulf. When an attack on Iran is underway, all bets are off
for any graceful transition to new global reserve currency scheme.